Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Bartlett | Maine Supreme Ct AFFIRMS .... Homeowner gets a "FREE HOUSE". Not because they were "right on the law". Lender SANCTIONED for arrogance and abuse of legal system.
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
Decision: 2014 ME 37 Docket: Yor-13-298 Argued: January 14, 2014 Decided: March 4, 2014 Panel: ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, JJ. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC v. JOHN H. BARTLETT et al. SILVER, J. [¶1] Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC,1 appeals from a judgment entered in the District Court (York, Cantara, J.) dismissing with prejudice Bayview’s complaint seeking a judgment of foreclosure against John H. Bartlett and Cheryl J. Bartlett. Bayview argues that the District Court erred or abused its discretion in dismissing the action based on Bayview’s failure to appear at three mediation sessions. We affirm the judgment. [...] [¶7] After a hearing, the court (Douglas, J.) entered an order on October 4, 2012, concluding that the ultimate sanction of dismissal with prejudice was not warranted “yet.” The court warned Bayview, however, that it had “come very close to that point,” and that “if there is a future breach by [Bayview] there is a risk that the court could, upon motion and after proper process, dismiss this case with prejudice.” The court ordered that the parties attend a fourth mediation session and sanctioned Bayview, ordering (1) that all interest and fees be tolled from the date of the first mediation until the date of any loan modification, or, if none, the date of the order; (2) that Bayview pay the Bartletts’ reasonable expenses, “including lost income and transportation costs for (i) the second and third mediation sessions, (ii) any and all court events they have attended related to this motion, and (iii) lost income and transportation expenses, if any, incurred in connection with a fourth mediation session”; (3) that Bayview pay the Barletts’ reasonable attorney fees in connection with the Bartletts’ motion; and (4) that Bayview pay a $1000 fine to the Foreclosure Diversion Program. [...] [¶9] On April 2, 2013, after a hearing, the court (Cantara, J.) dismissed Bayview’s complaint with prejudice. The court stated that it was “aware of the gravity of the sanction it is imposing,” but concluded that dismissal with prejudice was “the only appropriate sanction” in light of Bayview’s “pattern of disruptive behavior,” its failure to respond to lesser sanctions, and the court’s “strong warning” that future noncompliance could result in dismissal with prejudice. The court rejected Bayview’s argument that its failure to appear at the fourth mediation session was excusable because it was the result of an inadvertent error of counsel, reasoning that “[a]fter failing to appear on two previous occasions,” Bayview “should have been [hypervigilant] about ensuring that it appeared at all future mediation sessions.” The court also noted that the case had been pending since 2009 and that Bayview’s conduct deprived the Bartletts of three opportunities to mediate. Bayview filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied. Bayview timely appealed. [...]